Supreme Court's Verdict on ObamaCare will be a winner- Regardless the Outcome

[ghettopalmetto]

Instead of trying to convince us that these are equivalents to the individual mandate and that they are all around us, please tell us exactly how someone can legally avoid having to pay for health care insurance under Obamacare's individual mandate ?

Don't get sick and don't die. Otherwise, you're a consumer of healthcare, and will thus, need health insurance at some point.

For an interesting perspective, read the Second Militia Act, which posed an individual mandate for all males of a certain age to purchase firearms from a private-sector manufacturer. This Act has remained unchallenged in the courts for over 200 years, giving further credence to the thought that this AHA lawsuit is nothing more than pure politics on behalf of the right-wing.

Still waiting for the "replace" portion of the GOP's "repeal and replace" to be germinated....

[firstandten]

Don't get sick and don't die. Otherwise, you're a consumer of healthcare, and will thus, need health insurance at some point.
Still waiting for the "replace" portion of the GOP's "repeal and replace" to be germinated....

Great comment ! For those of you that hate Obamacare I'm also waiting for the replace part of repeal and replace

We could look at Singapore's model, the right kind of likes this. Everyone has a health care account [[the rightwing is into the vouchers's and saving accounts). However its mandated that everyone who works pays into the account, that amount is matched by the companies. Routine health care like doctor's visits, prescriptions are out of pocket. This would cover only the large health care cost. And they have separate plan for nursing home care if needed. The indigent get gov't health care. So in effect Singapore has universal health care.

However at least in America the out of pocket expenses for health care especially for prescriptions can clean your pocket.

I'm sure one could find other models of health care coverage that is universal or nearly universal but they are going to require some type of mandate.

I'm betting that SCOTUS will uphold the individual mandate after the political theatre dies down.

[JBMcB]

For an interesting perspective, read the Second Militia Act, which posed an individual mandate for all males of a certain age to purchase firearms from a private-sector manufacturer. This Act has remained unchallenged in the courts for over 200 years, giving further credence to the thought that this AHA lawsuit is nothing more than pure politics on behalf of the right-wing.

That power is limited to times of national emergencies and/or insurrections. It's been generally held that the president can set aside constitutional protections during these times, it's not a perpetual arrangement.

Apples and oranges, in other words.

[ghettopalmetto]

That power is limited to times of national emergencies and/or insurrections. It's been generally held that the president can set aside constitutional protections during these times, it's not a perpetual arrangement.

Apples and oranges, in other words.

The portion I have referenced is the first paragraph of the 2nd Militia Act, passed 8 May 1792.

The "times of national emergencies and insurrections" qualifier applies to the 1st Militia Act, passed 2 May 1792, which gives the President power to mobilize militias.

Regardless, the 2nd Militia Act imposes an individual mandate. Apples and oranges, indeed.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm